Singapore Top Court Ruling on Gay Sex Disappoints Advocates
Equality advocates in Singapore expressed disappointment with the country's highest court refusing to overturn a law criminalizing gay sex on the grounds that the law is never enforced. The advocates say the real problem isn't the colonial-era law itself, which is know as Section 377A, but the discrimination it implicitly endorses.
The New York Times noted, "A similar law imposed by British colonial rulers in India — and known there as 377 — was struck down by the Indian Supreme Court in 2018, inspiring activists to challenge the law in Singapore and other former British colonies."
But the Singapore Court of Appeals turned the case aside with an argument that "that three men who brought challenges did not have legal standing because the government has pledged not to enforce the colonial-era law," the Times detailed.
LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Pink Dot SG said in a statement that the court's reasoning was "cold comfort," UK newspaper the Independent reported.
"Section 377A's real impact lies in how it perpetuates discrimination across every aspect of life: at home, in schools, in the workplace, in our media, and even access to vital services like health care," Pink Dot SG said.
Reuters noted that "Previous challenges in the socially conservative city-state in 2020 and 2014 also failed," and detailed that the court's reasoning was that "Singapore authorities do not plan to prosecute gay sex and thus [the law] would not deprive a person of the right to life or personal liberty under Article 9 of Singapore's constitution".
Moreover, the Independent relayed, the court argued that it's the place of the country's parliament — not the courts — to usher in such legal change.
"In its 152-page decision on Monday, Singapore's chief justice Sundaresh Menon said that "it is parliament, and not the courts, that is best placed to devise a pluralistic vision that accommodates divergent interests," the Independent detailed.
The lawmaking body has shown willingness to abolish such restrictive laws in the past. "In 2007, the Parliament voted to repeal Singapore's original Section 377, which prohibited oral and anal sex between consenting adults, but left Section 377A on the books," the Times recalled. "At the same time, the government said it would not "proactively" enforce the section," leading to the current state in which arrests are rarely, if ever, made under the provision.
Still, the very fact that the law remains on the books — and stipulates a penalty of up to two years imprisonment for sexual relations between men — makes men who have sex with men "effectively un-apprehended criminals and subject to a culture of shame and homophobia," said Téa Braun, the head of London-based charity Human Dignity Trust, Reuters said.
It might be the best that Singapore can do for now, Reuters added, noting that "Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has called the law an 'uneasy compromise' as society 'is not that liberal on these matters.'"